Bill Targets 'Judge Shopping' by Limiting Nationwide Injunctions to Multi-Judge Court Divisions

A piece of legislation titled the "End Judge Shopping Act" proposes a significant change to federal court procedures by amending Title 28 of the U.S. Code. The core of the bill is a new rule: if a lawsuit seeks a nationwide injunction – that's a court order aiming to block a federal policy across the entire country – it can no longer be filed in just any federal court division. Instead, such cases must be brought before a division that has at least two active judges assigned to it. This effectively removes the power of single-judge divisions to issue these broad, country-wide orders.

Where the Big Cases Go Now

So, what does this mean practically? Right now, a single federal judge, potentially in any district court division regardless of its size, can issue an injunction halting a major federal action everywhere. Think about challenges to sweeping immigration policies, environmental regulations, or healthcare rules. This bill redraws the map for where those initial challenges can happen. Under Section 2, seeking that kind of immediate, nationwide stopgap requires heading to a court division specifically staffed with multiple judges. The stated aim, reflected in the bill's title, is likely to prevent litigants from strategically picking a single, potentially sympathetic judge in a specific location to try and secure a nationwide ruling.

Reshaping the Playing Field for Policy Challenges

This structural shift could have a few key ripple effects. For individuals or groups wanting to quickly challenge a new federal policy they believe is harmful on a national scale, this could add hurdles. It might mean needing to file in specific, potentially less convenient, court locations or navigating proceedings designed for multi-judge review from the outset. This potentially impacts the speed and accessibility of seeking broad relief against government actions, raising concerns about limiting access to justice or restricting the scope of available challenges.

Furthermore, this concentrates the power to issue nationwide injunctions into divisions with more judicial resources, typically found in larger metropolitan areas. While proponents might argue this ensures more deliberation before a nationwide policy is halted, it also shifts significant leverage away from smaller, single-judge divisions. It changes the initial dynamics of how major legal battles over federal policy begin, requiring plaintiffs seeking nationwide impact to start their fight on a different, potentially more complex, stage.